Is it the end for DEI?

00:03 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Welcome to HR Disrupted with me, lucy Adams. Each episode will explore innovative approaches for leaders and HR professionals and challenge the status quo with inspiring but practical people strategies. So if you’re looking for fresh ideas, tips and our take on the latest HR trends, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, hi. So on today’s podcast, we’re going to be looking at an HR topic that’s been making the headlines recently Diversity, equality and inclusion, or DEI as it’s known, or sometimes DNI, and DEI has kind of had a bit of a rough ride recently. It’s had, you know, legal challenges, political pressure, polarizing public opinion, and to talk about all of this, I am delighted to be joined by my co-founder of Disruptive HR, karen Moran. Hi, karen, hello, glad to be here.

01:04
Yeah, good to see you. And we’ve kind of seen some fairly extreme criticism of DEI recently. Haven’t we you know from the new administration in the US been some big, very bold statements, a lot of criticism? And we’ve also seen some big companies like Google, meta, mcdonald’s, amazon, kind of announcing kind of seemingly all together on the same day I know it wasn’t exactly on the same day, but it was very, very close proximity and pulling back and renouncing on their DEI commitments.

01:42 – Karen Moran (Host)
Yeah, and I think another trend that we’re seeing is that D&I roles are kind of declining. So I think there was some recent stats where there was a 43% decrease in D&I job postings between 2022 and 2024, which I think we’re probably not very surprised about. But yeah, it’s complex, isn’t it? Yeah, complex topic, but I think, you know, despite all the noise that we’re seeing in the press, I’m not sure that these companies don’t care about diversity. I think there’s some legal pressures, you know. I think a lot of organisations are now worrying they’ve gone too far the other way and they’re worrying about positive discrimination. There’s been lots of legal challenges in the US and the UK and I think I think these organizations are trying to work out how to stay committed to it without crossing into that kind of risky territory. Yeah, what’s what’s your take, lucy, on that?

02:47 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Well, I just kind of feel again it’s complex, right. So I’ve got very mixed feelings about this. I think, on the one hand, the fact that it was seemingly spontaneous but so obviously in response I’m talking about the rollback of commitments so obviously in response to the announcement from the new administration in the US, I think was just so obviously cynical and opportunistic and I think it reveals an underlying lack of real commitment. I think they could have handled it differently and I think it’s going to potentially cause them some real issues with trust with their employees later on. But on the other hand, I think it does reflect not just the company announcements but all of the noise we’ve seen in the press recently is it reflects a growing concern. I think that’s shared by lots of people and lots of HR people that we’ve spoken to and probably we would include us in that.

03:49
Yeah, you know that there are some issues with the way that, uh, that DEI has been delivered. Yeah, there’s this great book that you and I have read, um, by Tina Manielson and Lisa Kaplinsky, called Inclusion Nudges. We’ll put the link to the book in the post, in the show notes, and they have very cleverly kind of summarized what’s going wrong with a lot of traditional DEI efforts. For example, they say that we focus too much on compliance. You know hitting quotas, setting targets for managers, launching initiatives, putting managers on mandatory training programs to hit their targets, without really tackling the cultural issues that underpin them. They talk about the fact that we’ve fallen into the trap of what they call being busy bees.

04:43
You know doing loads and we would recognise that yeah, that was absolutely us. You know doing loads and loads of stuff but not really making a massive difference. And then another tactic that they said just hasn’t really worked is what they call fix the difference approach, and this is where we try to help underrepresented groups fit in rather than addressing the system that makes it harder for them in the first place. Um, I think, linked to all of that, there’s also this kind of almost this separate world of dei, you know, with its own language, where people who aren’t in the minority groups kind of don’t feel like it’s got anything to do with them. I think if we’re genuinely going to make the workplace more inclusive, dei has to be seen as a place where everyone can join in, everyone can have a voice, rather than it feeling too exclusive. So I don’t think that this backlash is the end of DNI or DEI, but I do think we in HR can use it as an opportunity to reset yeah and to do it better.

06:00
Yeah, so I think you and I have spoken about this, so we’re in violent agreement on this, but you know where would you start?

06:08 – Karen Moran (Host)
okay. Well, I think where I’d start is our D&I statements. So if we think about when we write our DNI statements on our websites or on our job descriptions or our job postings, you know they just feel like the organization is covering their backs. You know we often have, like the lawyers have written it for them, yeah, long list of minority groups, very formal language that you know, as we know, can kind of feel very kind of cold and disconnected. That you know, as we know, can kind of feel very kind of cold and disconnected. And so what we’re starting to see is companies that are getting it right. They’re keeping it simple, they’re keeping it human. So MailChimp is a great example that. What they say is some people call it diversity, we call it being a decent human.

06:57
You and t-mobile uniqueness is powerful. Be yourself. We like it that way, you know. I think it’s. This is not about compliance, it’s about culture, and I think when inclusion feels more natural, when it’s about belonging rather than ticking boxes, I think we just don’t read the words. We actually believe it and it should just. Shouldn’t it be just simply the right way to treat people? We say this about HR all the time. It’s common sense of just doing the right thing.

07:29 – Lucy Adams (Host)
I totally agree with that. I think it’s become seen as something as other and different and unique, and and I think ultimately we start to lose people like that. And I think the other problem for me in the way that we delivered D, d and I or DEI is that we still haven’t really worked through how to challenge or change people’s biases in a meaningful way. You know, we’ve all got biases, not because we’re bad people or because we’re bigots I mean, some people are, obviously, but most of us aren’t but we’ve got biases because we’re human. And you know, in HR we’ve done tons of what what’s known as unconscious bias training. I’ve spent billions on it, but just making people aware that they have bias isn’t the same as actually challenging those biases effectively. There was some research done in 2021 by the London School of Economics and it found that, whilst knowledge of our biases was improved by going on this training, it actually led to worse diversity stats in the longer term.

08:41
I think there’s something about managers kind of almost being given a pass and like it’s not your fault, it’s unconscious, nothing I can do about it, so I’ll just carry on regardless, whereas what we’re beginning to see now are companies like Epic Games and Arla Foods, who embed these kind of bias checks into the hiring and promotion processes. So it’s about nudging managers to think twice before they make their choice. So it’s actually in the moment where they’re doing the hiring decision, not putting them on a training program six months before and expecting it to have an impact, but actually prompting them and nudging them. I think Epic Games call it the second look rule, don’t they Just take a second look? So nudging managers in the moment, whilst they’re making the decision, I think is a use. It’s not gonna change the world overnight, but I think it’s more effective than the training program.

09:46
You’ve got Ernst Young with their approach to promotion decisions and hiring decisions, where they do what’s called a PTR check. So this is where another manager would say is this person just your preference? So the P. You know it’s that kind of I just like them, you know, is it a tradition? The T? The reason you’ve chosen them is because we’ve always had somebody with those skills, or we’ve always had somebody from that university, or we’ve always had somebody who worked in the office. And then, finally, or is it just an actual requirement of the role? So it’s it, you know? So that kind of again not going to change the world, but a PTR check at the point where managers are making a decision.

10:32
And then I really like what eBay do. So they, you know, when we’ve done talent reviews and we’ve all sat around the table with leaders and managers doing our annual talent review and managers and leaders in the room will come up with these huge generalizations, these sweeping statements like, well, they’re my natural successor. They’re not ready, yeah, or she just isn’t ambitious enough, or whatever it might be well, what ebay did was to create these cards where you have these sweeping generalization statements on the front and on the reverse are actually some questions that really probe with that leader to get them to think through the decision, the statement that they’re making, the choices that they’re making. I also like what they’ve done at Nestle, where they’ve just adjusted the prompt they give to managers.

11:25
So managers, when they’re doing their talent review, so instead of saying who’s your top talent and immediately the bias has kicked in They’ve chosen their elite and they’re this you know, group of mini me’s. Instead they say, right, look, we want you to work on the basis that everyone in your team’s ready to do something different. What would that look like? So it’s forcing them to just think in a slightly different way, or at least encouraging them to say you know, think in a slightly different way and widening that talent pool rather than focusing on an elite few. So I think, you know, d&i doesn’t have to be about sitting in a training room, it’s about using, you know, have to be about sitting in a training room, it’s about using, you know, the psychology of decision making making smarter, fairer decisions in real time. I love that.

12:16 – Karen Moran (Host)
I love that and of course, I think, particularly now with ai, that we can use technology and that can help us really reduce bias in, particularly in hiring. Now, of course, there are some risks, uh, with ai, but I think as we train it more, um, we are able to make kind of fair decisions, particularly at scale. So we know there are many companies already doing this really well ibm, johnson, johnson using these kind of ai driven skills assessments, and the idea is that you’re taking the subjectivity out of hiring. So instead of relying on that all gut feel of that person, for me what they’re saying is AI can help us focus on what really matters Can the person do the job. And so Unilever I know they’re a great example of this They’ve ditched the traditional CV screening in a lot of areas and they’re using these kind of gamified AI driven assessments.

13:15
So instead of thinking about someone’s qualifications or which university they went to or their background, they’re actually asked to play these kind of neuroscience based games. They’re looking at problem solving, emotional intelligence, numerical reasoning, no CVv, just proof that they’ve got the skills to do the job. Um, and I know they they’re real big fans of this and saying that they are seeing a big increase in diversity, particularly at the early kind of career level, so that’s really good.

13:45
And then there are so many, so much. We could go on forever on. You know me, I love my ai tech, but there’s a company called pymetrics and what it does is it matches candidates to roles based on sort of cognitive and emotional traits, rather than looking at where they went to university, and so I think the good thing about that is that it opens up these opportunities for people that may have been overlooked in the past, and it’s.

14:14 – Lucy Adams (Host)
you know you see these requirements, don’t you? Which is graduate level? And it’s, and we know about you. But I’ve been definitely guilty of just an assumption graduate level without really kind of Well, why? Why? What is it without really kind of well? Why? Why? What is it? What we’re using is graduate level as a proxy for the cognitive abilities to do something, um, that the role requires, but actually we’re not really testing it, are we? So not.

14:40 – Karen Moran (Host)
um, I think we do the same when we say you know they must have, you know, five years of experience or whatever, and then we’re wondering why there’s all these kind of you know young people struggling to get roles because you know they haven’t got the experience You’ve got to give them a chance. Can they do the job, or at least give them a chance. So I think AI is kind of is becoming very helpful, and of course it’s not about replacing human judgment we still do need that, but it does. It’s there to kind of improve it, I guess.

15:11 – Lucy Adams (Host)
And also, you know, rather than trying to work really hard at challenging bias, it just takes the bias out of the equation, doesn’t it? It takes the human out of the equation, as you say.

15:22 – Karen Moran (Host)
At some point a human being needs to make a decision, but it’s keeping that pool of talent as wide as it possibly can before the before the humans get involved yeah, before we mess it up, I was thinking about, um, that you know your point earlier about it being kind of more natural in the kind of everyday, everyday work, and I think that we’re starting again to see, rather than these kind of big D&I corporate initiatives, big policies, they’re just kind of weaving it into everyday work. So there was Atlassian, do you remember? We looked at their example where they said rather than focusing and just talking about minority groups which, of course, again, people find it uncomfortable, you know, they’re worried about saying the wrong things they talk about we’re just interested in building balanced teams. We want to make sure our teams have the right mix of skills, backgrounds, perspectives for us to be able to perform our best. And I really like that because I think it just makes it.

16:28
We kind of all get that, don’t we? Of course we want that and, godaddy, what they do is they’ve been really good at just focusing on the small things, so they call them the micro inequities, where you’re just kind of prompting or nudging managers to remind them about. You know how does it feel if someone is constantly talked over in a meeting, or it’s always the certain people in the room that are hogging the whole meeting and you’re not getting those fresh perspectives. So I like the way that they’re kind of moving away from these big corporate programs and just making it part of sort of you know how we do things around here.

17:05 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think this is so important that, as you say, there is a risk that we focus on these big campaigns. We think in HR that they’ve got to be, you know, they’ve got to have a title and name and marketed and so on, and that actually, if all we’re doing is focusing on the conversations that managers are having with their teams, that we’re not doing enough, that managers are having with their teams, that we’re not doing enough. But that’s where cultural change happens, isn’t it? Cultural change happens through conversation, through interaction, and so I really like the fact that many companies that we’re seeing are not necessarily dispensing with some of the bigger campaigns, but they are majoring on engaging people in conversations. They’re not trying to be too exclusive about it, they’re making it non-threatening.

17:57
I always remember and it’s a stupid thing, but I remember when I was the only female on this all-male exec team and I’d had my hair cut at the weekend. It was quite a dramatic change in my hairstyle. I went into the executive team meeting on the Monday and and four out of the five guys they were all guys were in the room and they were like oh, light your hair, lucy. Oh, thank you very much. And then the fifth one came in. He’d been in the bathroom and he looked at my hair and then looked away and I said, oh, grant does he like it?

18:34
Grant, have you not noticed my hair? And he said I just didn’t know whether I was allowed to say anything or not. And I think you know I often think about him that you know he wasn’t a bigot, he wasn’t somebody that you know was was problematic when it came to D&I. But I can imagine that there are lots of managers out there, particularly the older male managers, who might feel that the conversations are a bit scary, a bit intimidating. I mean, even you and I do you remember we were running a live session on um d and I and we talked about some. We talked about people who suffered from aspergers. Yes, and I got a real telling off from one of the attendees of this webinar saying it’s not a sufferer, it’s someone who has aspergers. And every time I mean even just talking about that sentence, I started to feel anxious about it. And that’s us that are, kind of say, steeped in it, but we’re, you know it’s our area and we’re nervous and anxious about it. So I think there’s something about what can we do to re-engage people by making it feel less intimidating, dropping some of that language like Atlassian that you mentioned, using language that people understand that focusing on simple conversations with nudges, that it’s not feeling like it’s not for them, because that’s the only way we’re going to change the culture, isn’t it? So I think we can probably start to wrap up here.

20:16
You know, I don’t think the title of this podcast was, you know, is it the end for D&I? I don’t think it is the end for D&I. I don’t think it’s dead, I think it matters so much, but the old way of doing it, you know, the compliance-driven, box-ticking, sometimes kind of performative approach, I think we are possibly seeing the end of some of that, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. I think there’s a chance to build something better, something that’s much more human, more practical, embedded in how we work every day, definitely so I think. On that note, we’ll wrap things up and let’s just kind of you know, hope that we can move past the, the noise and the the negative stuff around D&I that we’re seeing at the moment, but equally that the D&I community, the HR community, are able to respond and to and to do things in a way that’s just much more impactful. So thanks so much for joining us on today’s episode and look forward to speaking to you next time. Bye for now bye.